Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/22/2014 8:30 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
Anyhow, riding in the middle of the lane on a busy street with a bicycle
is IMHO not smart.
So what do you do when you're in a ten foot lane, and an 8.5 foot wide
truck is behind you?

Ideally I do not ride there at all. If I must I stay about a foot or so
away from the side and hope the driver heeds the law that says he must
pass me with 3ft clearance, thus waits until he can safely do so.
However, like any aircraft pilot worth his salt is continually looking
for a spot to put it down safely I will also be scanning the side of the
road for a sudden evasive maneuver in case the trucker takes a risk.
One of the benefits of being at lane center in such a situation is
that it gives you much more evasive room to the right if the motorist
does take a risk. However, that room is rarely needed. Almost all
motorists will wait until it's safe to pass.

This seems a hypothetical benefit. Rarely is the concern that one is
about to be flattened by a slowly advancing steam roller; at least I
haven't experienced that. Rather the vehicles are coming up fast; too
fast for me to really know what they are doing as I only have a barely
adequate convex, bar-end mounted mirror.


That's why Frank would likely not live very long out here. Driver zips
through a curve, suddenly sees bicyclist close to edge, barely passes
him .. whew.

Same situation but this time with bicyclist in the lane ... "Oh NOOO!"
.... *KAPOW*

Taking the lane is suicide out here. Won't do it.


... Watching what's going on
behind means I'm not watching where I'm headed. As such, when Duane
recounts his evasive action into the ditch, or wherever, I wonder how he
even knew what was happening. Helmet/eyeglass mirror? Head on a swivel?


I had that happen, on Durock Road in Cameron Park, CA. Heard slight
screeching, turned head, saw fishtailing vehicle approach and made the
instant decision to bail. I think in hindsight it wasn't necessary
because the driver got the car under control again but I am not going to
take that chance.


It occurs to me that sidepaths probably have a certain addictive
quality. That is, if one learns to ride almost entirely on sidepaths,
he is probably going to be excessively timid on the road. Perhaps
forever!

The same is true for bike lanes. Given their ubiquity in my area, it's
pretty easy to avoid ever having to take the lane, at least if you stay
away from the more interesting roads in the country.


I wish we had that kind of paradise. There are many stretches of road
out here that are simply unpassable by bike except for riders with a
Kamikaze mindset.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:06:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:38:03 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 23:37, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 17:20, Joerg wrote:

Most people simply do
not feel safe on a bike when big trucks rumble by at 3ft or less
distance.
IME big trucks don't do that to me. They're driven by more experienced,
better trained drivers, and give me more room.

Of course I do do one thing which helps them do this : My riding
position means they have to make an explicit overtaking move, they can't
just come by staying in lane.

Then you must live in an area where truckers are never paid by the mile
and barely get by.
It sounds like you used to, then moved to the US.

Yep. But it's not much different in Europe. What is done a lot over in
Europe is shipping companies recruiting drivers but employing them as
"independent" contractors. Then they get paid by deliveries, not per
hour. I've seen them hammering those delivery vans and truck down the roads.


Lorry drivers here get paid more than minimum wage - it's seen as a
skilled job. Having a reliable competent driver is worth more than
having one who might crash on the way.

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/...Trailer/Salary

That doesn't strike me as a very generous pay.

It depends on what kind of "trucker" one is. U.S. long distance (cross
country) truckers averaged according to the U.S.Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), an average of $40,360 per year as of May 2012,

In addition, I believe, that a great many long distance truckers are
driving their own equipment and while contracted to haul for, XYZ Van
Lines, they are driving their own truck and paid accordingly.

Yeah, at best by the mile and at worst by the load. The latter often
meaning they get nothing for empty rides and so they tend to "get it
over with" fast, by stepping on it.

[...]

Way back when.. I was in the Service and my household goods were
shipped at government expense. On one move the tractor trailer rig
came in driven by a guy with his wife riding "shotgun". They told me
that he had just gotten out of the Army and they had bought this truck
and gotten a contracted to drive for the furniture moving company.
They said that they were paid by the trip. so much for hauling from
point A to point B, regardless of the actual size of the load.

They said that the guy had gotten some form of "GI loan" and the
company had guaranteed the loan, in some manner, and that they lived
in the truck. The wife told my wife that "it is really fun" and that
they had been "all over the U.S."

From what they said, they never had to "dead head", that the company
was large enough that they always had a load, but not necessarily to
where THEY wanted to go :-)


California suffer a slow exodus and it was a serious exodus at the start
about 10-15 years ago. A moving truck driver told me that deadheading
was a major problem for his company. Like on that day where he headed
from our neighbor's house to WA state where they move to but there was
not yet any confirmed load back and he was fairly sure there wouldn't
be. In his case the large company owned the truck but he said it's
really hard on "independent" owner-operators.

Life in the cab can be nice. I did an electronics project once for
trucks and when I stood in one of those cabs I could not even touch the
roof when I stretched. One older guy I met had logged over three million
miles in the cab. But isn't a life I envy even if I could carry my MTB.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:37:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
Why is it that bike stuff is so short-lived while car stuff is so
vastly superior in quality?.
A car has hundreds of horsepower available to haul itself and its
occupant around. A bike has perhaps 1/4 horsepower available. So bike
equipment is designed with a lower safety factor and lower expected
life, in order to reduce weight or otherwise improve performance. It
works out reasonably well, because bikes typically see far fewer hours
of use than cars.

One can buy a bike whose components will last much longer than those on
typical bikes. But I think few posting here are interested, because
performance suffers pretty significantly.

It is a piece of cake to design brake cables twice as thick for serious
riders and they won't be penalizingly heavy. Same for tires, brake pads
et cetera. I believe the main reason is that cyclists accept inferior stuff.

Sometimes you can buy heavier gear. For example, my bike dealer showed
me a 29" MTB tite that (finally!) has some real tread on it. Then came
the shocker: 79 bucks plus tax! It still won't last much longer than my
previous one (well under 1000 miles). A tire for my SUV cost me less and
easily lasts 70,000 miles.

From a different viewpoint, they will sell, probably, more than a
million SUV tires and bicycle tires counted in the thousands, possibly
in the hundreds.


I'd think a company like Vee Rubber will have bicycle tire sales in the
high six digits. AFAIK they even run their own rubber plantations. I am
trying their 29" Vee Rubber Flying right now. Tread and traction aren't
better than on the previous Hutchinson Cobra but they cost only 1/3rd.


SUV drivers don't seem to care what the weight of their tires is while
cyclists demand light weight tires. It would be possible to make
heavy, long lasting, bicycle tires, but who would buy them? You? and
maybe two guys in Idaho?


Actually all folks using the bike for non-pleasure riding. Also all the
bike share organizations should be interested if they are smart about
it. Then police bikes, and so on.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:20:18 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 11:19 AM, Joerg wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:29:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/21/2014 8:55 PM, Joerg wrote:
To me disc brakes add a ton of safety but to a novice rider that
doesn't
matter.
I'm curious how disc brakes added a ton of safety for you.

I have cantilevers on almost all my bikes. The only time I was ever
somewhat afraid of stopping in time was when a brake cable snapped on
our tandem. And yet, I did stop the bike in plenty of time.

So I take it that you never ride in the rain?Frank, don't get me wrong
but sometimes I wonder how much commuting or transport bicycling
experience you really have. Or do you only ride for sports when the
weather is nice?
I'm retired now, so it's easier for me to avoid riding in the rain, but
I've certainly done many thousands of miles of it. (Try touring
Ireland, for example!) I have a habit of anticipating traffic and road
conditions, though. And I'm quite a careful rider.

You cannot anticipate the little old lady accidentally stomping on the
accelerator causing her big old sedan to jut into the street right in
front of you. Rim brakes plus wet weather ... *KAPOW*

Sorry, that just isn't true, or at least not a universal truth. I've
got a hard tail mountain bike frame I converted to a "knock about"
bike. It has solid forks, 26" wheels and Vee Brakes. I can lock
either, or both wheels at any time and in wet or dry conditions, with
no problems at all. Which then becomes a matter of tires and pavement
to determine stopping distance.

Not type of brake.


My old MTB has V-brakes. Last winter I had many scary situations where
mud got on the rims and brakes. Reaching in all I heard at first was a
major grinding sound but hardly any deceleration. Only after a few turns
of the wheels it came. It was often so bad that I rode some trail
sections with slightly engaged brakes.

Now that I got discs I don't want to ever go back. But I kept the old
MTB for business trips and such so I have a cheap beater bike at my
destination that has next to zero chance of being stolen.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joe Riel writes:

John White writes:

In article , Joe Riel
wrote:

Duane writes:


BTW if you have drop bars, the bar end mirrors that I use seem to work
pretty well. I tried the helmet mirror but was always bothered by the
blind spot when looking left for oncoming traffic. YMMV.

Yes, that is the precise reason I didn't like them (referring to a
commercial eyeglass mounted mirror). My wife says you get used to the
blind spot. I'm sure you do, that doesn't seem a good thing. The
mirror the Frank makes (he's described it before) is about half the size
of the commercial versions I've seen. That would reduce the blind spot
significantly, but its still there. I need to make a smaller one to
see if it is acceptable.

I use a glasses-mounted mirror, and don't notice a blind spot at all;
one of the advantages of binocular vision. I do mount the mirror so that
it's angled up a bit, which gets it out of my normal line of sight, and
also gives a better view over my shoulder. Just goes to show that
YMMV.

By "don't notice" I assume you really mean you no longer notice. At
some point the brain quits complaining.

Sometimes when walking down the street I look into that little corner in
my field of view and notice that I *can't* see what's behind me. Since I
wear eyeglasses for myopia my peripheral vision is compromised anyway.
Sacrificing a tiny bit of my forward field of view for some rearward
seems a good bargain.

Only a small part of one's field of view has much acuity anyway,
something about which our brains do not complain. Fortunately
both eyeballs and heads are normally capable of motion.

--

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:21:59 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:55:25 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

sms wrote:
On 10/21/2014 4:57 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Fact is, for car travel there exists a nice mix of routes that provide
adequate average safety. For bicycling there doesn't, only scattered
here and there. Like to Walmart where nobody in their right mind would
use Mother Lode Drive (two-lane country road, no bike lanes, high
speeds) on a bicycle. And nobody does. There is now a trail but it's not
for the faint of heart because it requires rider to have at leat basic
mountain biking skills and also not be afraid of heights. I love it but
that doesn't go for most other cyclists. So what do they do? The usual,
hop into their cars.
The other big issue is that safety equipment on vehicles has been
continually improved over time. Padded dash, collapsible steering
column, power brakes, power steering, anti-lock brakes, traction
control, seat belts, shoulder belts, airbags, safety glass, TPMS, lane
departure warning system, safety cage.

For cyclists the safety improvements have been better brakes, better
lights, and helmets plus improved cycling infrastructure. You can get
ABS for bicycles but it's even rarer than dynamos.
In the end the main thing for people is whether or not they feel safe.
Most folks do not like the idea of 18-wheelers passing them very few
feet to the left. So they just won't use the bicycle unless they find an
infrastructure where they feel safe.

The reason is as you said, other than helmets there haven't been any
safety improvements for bicyclists that would make them feel any safer.
To me disc brakes add a ton of safety but to a novice rider that doesn't
matter.
Ah, but now you aren't talking about "safety" you are talking about
the "perception" of safety, to totally different things.

A guy doing, say 50 MPH on a bicycle may feel as though he is engaged
in a pretty risky business, but the same guy on his 250 cc motor cycle
feels relatively safe. But if you fall off there isn't any real
difference in "safety".
(Well other then the Styrofoam hat :-)

The key difference is simple: The guy on the motorcycle flows with the
traffic, at the same speed. He never gets passed by the 18-wheeler
truck. The guy on the bicycle can't do that. Even a fully trained Tour
de France winner can't.

Again, you are switch hitting. You were talking about the precept ion
of safety - the feeling that a helmet does offer protection, and now
you are talking about something else, the ability to move at traffic
speed.


Being able to flow with traffic does give people a major boost also in
the perception of safety. Because they don't have to constantly be
looking over their shoulders whether or not some idiot car driver is
about to start an unsafe passing procedure.


While I haven't lived in the U.S. for years now, I do remember signs
on the roads saying "Slow Traffic Keep Right", which I always took to
mean that Slow stayed out of the way of Fast.


Exactly. That's why "taking the lane" does not work. At least not on the
west coast. People expect you to move towards the right if you can't
keep up.

I hardly get honked at when in the middle of a lane approaching a
traffic light or in slow city traffic. Because I am flowing along at the
same speed as the cars around me. Sometimes it's prudent to do so, like
when the lane has more than one allowed direction and I want to turn
left. But once out there where speeds start to pick up I move to the right.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg writes:

Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/22/2014 8:30 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
Anyhow, riding in the middle of the lane on a busy street with a bicycle
is IMHO not smart.
So what do you do when you're in a ten foot lane, and an 8.5 foot wide
truck is behind you?

Ideally I do not ride there at all. If I must I stay about a foot or so
away from the side and hope the driver heeds the law that says he must
pass me with 3ft clearance, thus waits until he can safely do so.
However, like any aircraft pilot worth his salt is continually looking
for a spot to put it down safely I will also be scanning the side of the
road for a sudden evasive maneuver in case the trucker takes a risk.
One of the benefits of being at lane center in such a situation is
that it gives you much more evasive room to the right if the motorist
does take a risk. However, that room is rarely needed. Almost all
motorists will wait until it's safe to pass.

This seems a hypothetical benefit. Rarely is the concern that one is
about to be flattened by a slowly advancing steam roller; at least I
haven't experienced that. Rather the vehicles are coming up fast; too
fast for me to really know what they are doing as I only have a barely
adequate convex, bar-end mounted mirror.


That's why Frank would likely not live very long out here. Driver zips
through a curve, suddenly sees bicyclist close to edge, barely passes
him .. whew.

Same situation but this time with bicyclist in the lane ... "Oh NOOO!"
... *KAPOW*

Taking the lane is suicide out here. Won't do it.

I always wonder if there really is a difference between here and there
(there being Frank's utopia). One aspect of group riding I never liked
was close to what you described. We frequently rode on winding country
roads with not much shoulder and limited visibility. Several times a
year, an impatient driver would pass the entire group (20-30 riders)
completely over the double centerline in a blind corner. Only once (in
a couple decades) do I recall an oncoming car (it was forced onto the
shoulder). The driver's behavior is idiotic though somewhat
understandable (getting by a group of bike racers on a winding road, in
a car, demands a certain amount of patience). Presumably the drivers
are local residents and *know* that traffic is fairly light, however, it
puts the cyclists at risk, them not so much [it's not entirely clear who
is most at risk, but it sure doesn't seem safe from the cyclists'
perspective]. Note that the position of the cyclists in the road had
seemingly little influence on the passing behavior---the care would
either be all the way over or half way over the centerline.

--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/22/2014 8:30 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
Anyhow, riding in the middle of the lane on a busy street with a bicycle
is IMHO not smart.
So what do you do when you're in a ten foot lane, and an 8.5 foot wide
truck is behind you?

Ideally I do not ride there at all. If I must I stay about a foot or so
away from the side and hope the driver heeds the law that says he must
pass me with 3ft clearance, thus waits until he can safely do so.
However, like any aircraft pilot worth his salt is continually looking
for a spot to put it down safely I will also be scanning the side of the
road for a sudden evasive maneuver in case the trucker takes a risk.
One of the benefits of being at lane center in such a situation is
that it gives you much more evasive room to the right if the motorist
does take a risk. However, that room is rarely needed. Almost all
motorists will wait until it's safe to pass.

This seems a hypothetical benefit. Rarely is the concern that one is
about to be flattened by a slowly advancing steam roller; at least I
haven't experienced that. Rather the vehicles are coming up fast; too
fast for me to really know what they are doing as I only have a barely
adequate convex, bar-end mounted mirror.


That's why Frank would likely not live very long out here. Driver zips
through a curve, suddenly sees bicyclist close to edge, barely passes
him .. whew.

Same situation but this time with bicyclist in the lane ... "Oh NOOO!"
... *KAPOW*

Taking the lane is suicide out here. Won't do it.

I always wonder if there really is a difference between here and there
(there being Frank's utopia). One aspect of group riding I never liked
was close to what you described. We frequently rode on winding country
roads with not much shoulder and limited visibility. Several times a
year, an impatient driver would pass the entire group (20-30 riders)
completely over the double centerline in a blind corner. Only once (in
a couple decades) do I recall an oncoming car (it was forced onto the
shoulder). The driver's behavior is idiotic though somewhat
understandable (getting by a group of bike racers on a winding road, in
a car, demands a certain amount of patience). Presumably the drivers
are local residents and *know* that traffic is fairly light, however, it
puts the cyclists at risk, them not so much [it's not entirely clear who
is most at risk, but it sure doesn't seem safe from the cyclists'
perspective]. Note that the position of the cyclists in the road had
seemingly little influence on the passing behavior---the care would
either be all the way over or half way over the centerline.

Here the driver is supposed to take the other lane to pass. But it's not
unusual to see what you describe. Passing like that in a blind turn is
idiotic. We're supposed to keep groups under 15 riders. But they just
passed a law last year requiring a single rotation. So that's back to
being pretty long for a driver to pass safely.

--
duane

Duane wrote:
On 10/23/2014 9:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2014 5:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 17:13, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 16:57, Joerg wrote:

[...]

IME they still snap, right at the end in the handle. I never
skimped on
paying for good cables because you live might depend on that some
day.

How often were you replacing them?

Maybe five years of so. I also keep the well lubed. Nowadays I ride
less
and less on the road bike, MTB s more fun.

I think what that's telling you is 5 years is too long for bikes ridden
in the way you used to. A 2 year replacement schedule might be more
appropriate.


Why is it that bike stuff is so short-lived while car stuff is so
vastly superior in quality?.


Average annual maintenance on my 1953 bicycle is much less than on
either of my 1965 cars. YMMV.


While this is probably true for my 1990 bike, it's probably not for my
2010. Depending, of course, on what you pay for annual maintenance on
either of your 1965 cars.


I rode probably about 2000 miles over the last 12 months and sunk around
$250 of material into the two bikes, not counting additions of new stuff
like better lights. Just wear and tear items, three tires, numerous
brake pads, chain lube, and such.

Oh, and I did not count any warranty replacements on the new MTB, of
which there were numerous. Busted the seat, wore out one freehub, things
like that. Next year that will add to the operating costs if it keeps
continuing.

On my car ... one oil change. 20 bucks because I use the good stuff for
oil. Every other time I change the filter which adds another $8. I use
more in chain lube Dollars alone. The car mileage over that period was
about the same.


10 speed chains and cassettes certainly don't last as long as 8 speed
versions and I can still get an 8 speed chain for 12 bucks but 10 speed
chains are 4 or 5 times that.


Not necessarily.

http://www.pricepoint.com/Brand/SRAM...Chain-2013.axd

A friend of mine always waits for a sale on the brand and type he wants,
then buys at least half a dozen. He throws them into the wax pot right
away and that keeps them good until needed. I think nowadays that's the
only way to really control the operating costs on modern bikes, wait for
a sale and then pounce. The downside is that one has to endure almost
daily "nag-mails" because a newsletter subscription is necessary in
order not to miss a sale or a free-shipping weekend. Sometimes the deals
are great, like $7 for the Alpinestar T-shirt I am wearing right now. I
bought half a stack of them at the sale.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:04:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:00:19 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 07:46:55 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2014 8:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
AFAIU right-hook crashes are the major concern with bike
paths over there. Why do they want to dump the baby out with the bath
water instead of looking for the obvious?
I'd suggest not putting the baby in stinky bath water to begin with.

Worse? Driver are negligent and sometimes dazed out here (drugs, booze,
pills, cell phones) but they sure are a ton more courteous than in
Europe.
Hmm. I've found drivers to be pretty similar in the U.S. and Europe -
IOW, almost all treat me well. I do think that they're a bit more
courteous where there are lots of cyclists, and where there are strict
liability laws. Admittedly, I don't have a ton of experience with the
latter.

I never, not once, got into a critical situation on a US bike
path.
I think I've mentioned that our bike club members have had many more
hospital visits from bike path riding than from road riding, despite far
more miles ridden on roads. The crashes didn't involve cars, but other
cyclists, pedestrians, slippery surfaces, shoulders with sudden
dropoffs, etc. But the broken bones and hospital visits were real.

So why is it that in all my life as a cyclist, and that's decades by
now, there was no critical situation of this kind on a bike path? And
why is it that I got into crashes on the road several times where every
single time the car driver was at fault?

The worst one was where I banged into a car door so bad that the driver
could not open it anymore from the inside.

And why is it that _all_ my friends that were severly hurt were hurt
while cycling on roads? Which serious I mean things like a lost kidney,
ruptured spleen and such.

If bicycling is the dangerous pastime that you have just described it
should be totally banned, and quite obviously cyclists are people who
require local, state, or national, legislation to protect them as you
have just provided proof that they are deliberately engaging in a life
threatening activity as a sport.

At the very minimum insurance, whether life, injury or death, should
be written to negate payment for bicycle injuries as that is a known
danger which would not be engaged in by normally prudent people.
Wityh that kind of argumentation you should also ban the sports of
socccer. It's much more dangerous to the health.
Exactly. Although I never participated on Soccer, I might comment that
I never heard members of a (American) football team or the ice hockey
team sit around the locker room telling each other how dangerous the
sport is.

As I am reading here.

I'll go a little further. I had a couple of friends that were sky
divers, probably the most dangerous sport one can participate in, and
for the several years I knew them I never heard them even mention that
the sport was dangerous.

Then they live a risky live. I did skydiving for many years, in Belgium.
One of the first things our teacher told us was "If you ever loose that
litte knot of afraidness in your stomach before leaving the aircraft,
stop skydiving. Because let's not kid ourselves, it is dangerous".

That sport is very dangerous. And yeah, I did it anyhow. But here is the
rub: _I_ get to decide how much risk I will take. When riding on the
side of a busy road with my bicycle others decide how much risk I will
be exposed to. The guy in the truck back there that just had a few shots
at the saloon, the lady in the sports car that took sleeping pills to be
able to sleep duing the day because if shift work, the kid in the
roaring lowrider who is looking at an incoming text message, and so on.

Whether the sport is dangerous, or not, isn't the point. The point is
that I've never heard anyone who was engaged in any of the more
dangerous sports, or activities, sit around and tell each other "how
dangerous this is".


They do point out dangers to each other just like we do here. For
example, we regularly talked to the "low pullers" who would pull at
1800ft or less. Or about how to approach better in the next formation
jump to reduce the chance of smacking into each other. Mountain bikers
do the same. "If you ride past the curve over yonder don't gain too much
speed on the downhill stretch afterwards because at the end there is ...".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/